[MAJOR UPDATE] Obama orders ICE to not cooperate with AZ immigration law.
Arizona v. US has been decided. The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Demand to see papers survives.
The portions of the law that were struck down were: Making it crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. (WSJ)
[Update- AZ Governor Jan Brwer's Statement at the bottom of the post]
Below will be the 76 page Supreme Court decision in the case of Arizona vs United States, regarding AZ's immigration law SB 1070. Beneath the embedded decision will be links and analysis and reactions as they start coming out from media, old and new and across the web.
The Supreme Court struck multiple provisions of the controversial immigration law passed in Arizona, but upheld the portion of the law where law enforcement could check identification proving citizenship or being in the country legally if they had a prior reason to detain the person in question.
In the embedded document below, scroll down to page 30 for the start of Justice Scalia's opinion where he dissents and concurs, but his dissent is scathing on limiting a states power to protect their borders:
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part ( checking for ID) and dissenting in part ( portions of the law struck), concludes (Page 51):
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.
Justice Thomas dissenting and concurring opinion starts on page 52 and Judge Alito dissenting and concurring opinion starts on page 56.
Arizona vs United States SB 1070 Supreme Court Ruling
[Update] Media links are starting to come out:
Reuters with "Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law."
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday, rejecting the Obama administration's stance that only the U.S. government should enforce immigration laws in the United States.
The nation's highest court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, upheld the state law's most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.
But in a split decision, the justices also ruled that the three other challenged provisions went too far in intruding on federal law, including one provision that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work and another that requires them to carry their documents.
ABC News with "Arizona Cops Can Check for Papers, Supreme Court Rules"
Police officers in Arizona are allowed to check the immigration status of every person who is stopped or arrested, the Supreme Court ruled this morning.
But the court struck down other key parts of the law, signaling a victory for the federal government in its authority over immigration law.
The controversial immigration measure passed in Arizona two years ago and has been opposed by President Obama.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the policy could interfere with federal immigration law, but that the court couldn't assume that it would.
"The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provision even before the law has gone into effect," Kennedy wrote. "There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced."
[Update] Politico with "Supreme Court Arizona immigration ruling: Justices clear key part."
All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect. They split on three other disputed provisions of the law, with a majority of the justices ruling that each of those parts of the law could not be enforced because they intruded improperly into a policy sphere reserved to the federal government. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the ruling.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued the following statement Monday on the Supreme Court striking down three provisions of the state's law cracking down on illegal immigrants but upholding, for now, a fourth provision allowing police to stop people suspected of being in the country illegally:
Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights.
The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona's law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, "We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."